Mike?™

I’ve had my fun teasing insurance industry lobbyist cum executive cum candidate Mike!™ McGavick about the exclamation point typographically appended to his first name, but his recent fender-benders with the truth suggest that we’ve all been using the wrong punctuation. Indeed, now that the actual police report has been shown to contradict his supposedly “courageous,” “candid” and “Socratic” confession of a 1993 DUI, Mike?™ and his clever campaign consultants seem to be creating more questions than they answer.

There’s a lesson to be learned from Mike?™’s less-than-candid candor: never lie to reporters. Never. Never ever. It just plain pisses them off. And once you’ve blown your credibility, it’s hard as hell to earn it back.

(And oh yeah… lying is just plain wrong.)

At first Mike?™’s preemptive mea culpa seemed to have achieved it’s desired end, airing the worst of his dirty laundry in the dead of August while earning the candidate brownie points for candor. The initial press coverage even prompted the fawning folks over at (un)Sound Politics to kvell that “McGavick’s civility theme is paying dividends while others keep playing politics as usual.”

Uh-huh.

The problem is, it was Mike?™ who was soon proven to be playing politics as usual with the airing of a radio ad that deliberately misrepresented Sen. Maria Cantwell’s position on the sales-tax deduction. Perhaps another candidate in another campaign may have gotten away with such all too typical tactics, but not “Mr. Civility” — and especially not after making such a show out of public regretting a similarly deceptive political ad he ran some 18 years ago.

This new misleading ad was swiftly and roundly condemned in the press, with even the presumptively pro-McGavick Seattle Times editorial board advising the candidate to “pull the ad” in no uncertain terms, calling it “an age-old political trick” and a “politician’s version of highway robbery.” My guess is that many journalists really wanted to believe Mike?™’s civility schtick, and that the Times editorial board’s disappointment is deep and genuine.

But perhaps no other local journalist’s reaction to last week’s events more clearly illustrates the credibility bridge Mike?™ has built and burned than that of Seattle P-I columnist Robert Jamieson, who all but swooned over McGavick’s “refreshing candor” in last Saturday’s column, only to eat his words in today’s:

A week ago, in this column, I praised him for coming clean about a 1993 DUI in Montgomery County, Md.

McGavick’s gesture, I wrote, showed that he had examined his life and talked with candor about personal successes and failures.

Boy, was I mistaken.

Who could have known that McGavick’s pre-emptive confession would blast open a Pandora’s box?

In the incident from 13 years ago, McGavick said he was driving when he “cut a yellow light” too closely.

It turns out the light was “steady red,” according to a Maryland police report first obtained this week by The Herald in Everett.

McGavick told my P-I colleague Neil Modie last week that during the DUI incident he received a citation — that’s it.

This turns out not to be the full truth. McGavick was cited — and arrested.

Now that’s a mea culpa I can accept at face value.

Mike?™ made a fool out of Jamieson and his colleagues, but they won’t so easily be fooled again. In fact it only makes sense that a candidate who campaigns on civility — on character — and who demands a higher standard of political discourse, be held to that higher standard himself.

And even though the candidate isn’t talking about his DUI anymore, it’s a standard that Mike?™’s campaign still refuses to live up to.

“There is no effort to hide anything,” McGavick spokesman Elliott Bundy told me Friday. “That was how Mike recalled it at the time. It was an event from 13 years ago.”

What about the traffic light?

“I don’t think that is a large discrepancy,” said Bundy, who called the color of the light “a distinction without a difference.”

The important thing was that McGavick offered a voluntary mea culpa to begin with.

“You said this yourself,” Bundy pointed out to me.

What about McGavick’s citation versus arrest?

“Maybe it’s a terminology issue,” Bundy hedged.

To hear it from the McGavick camp, it would seem facts are “fudgeable.”

The problem for Mike?™ is not that these were big lies on their own, but that he chose to frame his entire confession as an exercise in public candor. “Cutting a yellow” is not the same thing as “running a steady red” — it is a turn of phrase intentionally chosen to soften the offense. Neither is “citation” versus “arrest” merely an issue of terminology, and it’s hard to believe that a man who was arrested, handcuffed, read his rights, and booked could remember the experience as anything but.

For Bundy to attribute the discrepancies to the passage of time is simply laughable… although a more credible excuse — that Mike?™’s supposedly faulty memory is due to the cumulative impact of years of heavy drinking — is probably politically unpalatable.

And besides, the police report itself incontrovertibly documents at least one McGavick lie: when asked if he’d been drinking Mike?™ told the officer he had only “two, maybe three beers,” but his 0.17 blood-alcohol level an hour and a half after the stop suggests he consumed at least 8 or 9 drinks, and possibly more than a dozen.

If a man is going to lie to the police, what’s to stop him from lying to a reporter or a voter?

Apparently, nothing. Which is why news of the newly revealed police report and its contradiction of Mike?™’s supposedly candid confession has made headlines here, here, here, and here.

Sure, it’s the dead of August, the news of the police report breaking on a Friday before Labor Day weekend, perhaps the deadest news weekend of the year. So I guess in that regard, Mike?™’s strategy was a success.

But the campaign only going to get harder for Mike?™ from here on out. And so will the questions.

You were called on this earlier. When piling on over somebody’s lies, do NOT start lying yourself. You are continuing to intentionally distort, misquote, and LIE about what McGavick told the police. You wrote:

“And besides, the police report itself incontrovertibly documents at least one McGavick lie: when asked if he’d been drinking Mike?™ told the officer he had only “two, maybe three beers,” but his 0.17 blood-alcohol level an hour and a half after the stop suggests he consumed at least 8 or 9 drinks, and possibly more than a dozen.”

But the police report reads “I/O then asked McGavick how much he had to dtink tonight McGavick responded “Oh, I don’t know- two, maybe three beers.”

So, Goldy- I guess after reading the various accounts in the newspapers and the blogs, I can only conclude that bloggers and journalists share a trait with politicians.

Huh? I don’t understand… I thought being a drunk made you Senator For Life? Wait… OK…. I get it… he didn’t kill anybody. That’s what’s missing…. he should have killed an innocent young woman… then you’d all be rallying for him.

Jim… I’m not sure where my lie is. I quoted McGavick accurately, and have provided a link to the police report and other articles quoting it.

Are you saying that it’s a lie because I added the word “only” before the quote? Or because I truncate the quote?

The fact is, when asked by the officer if he was drinking, he aproximated his consumption at “two, maybe three beers,” when in fact he clearly drank much more than that. It’s inconceivable that he did not know he was being deceitful.

Goldy and Gang one question what is her solution to this problem (VISION)? I can understand her point of view but she does not understand Al Qaeda (VISION) and what in it for her and her friends. If you want to read stories like hers click on the web site posted. “Who was Osama bin Laden and how did he find 19 hijackers to die for his cause? How could they hate us so much?” Now when you visit that web site count how many times the reference Osama bin Laden by name and who they think destroyed the WTC.http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm You are spreading false hope with bad or invalid information which is not uncommon for those who hate America first, or live in an isolated world. Goldy what has Lynn Allen and her friends done to visit the Middle East and talk to the Al Qaeda about their grievances? Maybe they can talk them into coming to the Pease Table and settle their grievances like those who are Freeing Tibet by displaying a bumper sticker. This problem was around in the 60’s when I was in Libya and will be for many years to come no matter whom is running this Country. Yes everybody has made mistakes but learn from them and move on. Remember that the Democrats have been running this country longer than any other Political power and still did not succeed in fixing the problem. They have yet to present a valid VISION to solve this conflict and sabotage anyone else plans because it was not bless by their Democrat friends. Maybe they should quite poisoning the well with their venom and provide some good leadership on their part to win this conflict. Where is their VISION? Better yet give us their PLAN so their friends the Al Qaeda can kill more women and children. Please don’t forget the TIME table when our military can leave the Middle East for Korea. Yep I smell the stench of a bunch of Girlie Boys trying to be men. FEAR keeps them behind their mother dress. HI Ted Kennedy! Did you get your driver’s licenses back yet? How can you lead a country without a driver license? “Five years on, I still respond to events spawned by the 9/11 attacks with a heightened awareness borne of my time at Ground Zero. I believe strongly that we have started along that second path of more violence and less safety. Our nation’s leaders have used our natural fear from that day to upend our moral compasses and to convince us that our safety lies in an unending “war on terror.” Under cover of that war, they are whittling away at the constitutional rights upon which this nation was built. Is this the path we want to pursue? It’s not too late to change direction, to write the alternative story, the one about remembering that we are all interconnected peoples on this planet, that we have far more in common than we have that divides us, and that we don’t have to live our lives in constant fear and shock.”

“U.S. Senate candidate Mike McGavick was stumbling drunk when he was pulled over … 13 years ago, and he understated how much he had had to drink, according to the deputy’s arrest report.

“McGavick failed all of the standard field sobriety tests before his arrest and fell asleep in the jail while waiting to be booked, said the report ….”

According to the Seattle Times article, the deputy said in the report that when he asked McGavick how much he had to drink, McGavick said “two, maybe three beers.” The article continues, “Last Friday, McGavick acknowledged he had been drinking beer for hours at three parties before he was pulled over. Blood-alcohol level calculators available on the Internet note that a 180-pound man would have to drink more than eight beers in an hour to achieve a blood-alcohol level of 0.17 percent.

“The deputy wrote that McGavick failed each of three field sobriety tests, including the ‘horizontal gaze test,’ which measures how smoothly an individual’s eyes can track an object(,) … the heel-to-toe walk(,) … (and) the one-leg stand test.”

This article is quoted under the Fair Use Doctrine; for complete story and/or copyright info, see http://tinyurl.com/lyorz

Hey Roger or Socialist you do pin by the same name? Marxism is a lot different than Socialism but they are similar in the ism, you know like Liberalism. The only thing they have in common could be they all tried to create their own Religion (God). Maybe that is what cause their demise and failed to solve today problems. Now today we have a new group stepping up to the plate to make everyone successful and look like a bowl of cherries. The SOCIALEST DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW did you all vote yet? I wrote in Goldie’s name for every one of those vacant lines on the Democrat Party. Hell he might get elected for Dog catcher yet.

You were called on this earlier. When piling on over somebodyï¿½s lies, do NOT start lying yourself. You are continuing to intentionally distort, misquote, and LIE about what McGavick told the police. You wrote: ï¿½And besides, the police report itself incontrovertibly documents at least one McGavick lie: when asked if heï¿½ï¿½d been drinking Mike?ï¿½ï¿½ told the officer he had only ï¿½two, maybe three beers,ï¿½ but his 0.17 blood-alcohol level an hour and a half after the stop suggests he consumed at least 8 or 9 drinks, and possibly more than a dozen.ï¿½ But the police report reads ï¿½I/O then asked McGavick how much he had to dtink tonight McGavick responded ï¿½ï¿½Oh, I donï¿½ï¿½t know- two, maybe three beers.ï¿½ So, Goldy- I guess after reading the various accounts in the newspapers and the blogs, I can only conclude that bloggers and journalists share a trait with politicians. They lie to make themselves look better than the facts support. Commentby Jim Kingï¿½ï¿½ 9/2/06@ 3:15 pm _________________________ The discrepancy is trivial, do you really expect the Dems not to make some hay out of this? Mike should have made the disclosure before he had the nomination sewed up.

“All right, Curtis . . . I can’t take any more of this. What the hell have you done?” Weinstein remembers asking.

“It’s not what I’ve done, Dad. It’s what I’m going to do,” Curtis answered, according to his father. “I’m going to beat the [. . .] out of the next person that calls me a [. . .] Jew or accuses me or our people of killing Jesus Christ.”

Now for the other side we turn to the poo-poo that DOOFUS has flung at the wall over sixty times since the end of July:

SSSSPPPPPPPPUUUURRLLLLTTTT…. SPPPPLLLLATTttt.

Sorry DOOFUS that poo didn’t stick but it sure did stink!!! Lap it up you hate-filled wingnut hypocrites.

When asked by the officer how much he had to drink, McGavick replied (per the officer’s report) “Oh, I don’t know- maybe two, three beers.” Now that is different than, as you put it, replying “only ‘two, maybe three beers'” (at least you took the “only” out of the quoatation THIS time) or as reported by Cornfield, “during the previous five hours” (whih language appears NOWHERE in the police report.

My point is that YOU, CORNFIELD, and others are embellishing an spinning to make what is already bad enough look even worse.

McGavick clearly indicated he didn’t KNOW how much he had to drink, then minimized his drinking. You keep insisting he said unequivocally that he had only two or three beers. Cornfield and others embellish further.

In this yo make the same mistake McGavick did- you didn’t stick to the facts, you tried to spin. He tried to lessen the offense, you try to worsen it.

It was bad enough on its face, and you had him properly hung with the bare facts. Again, you and others make the same mistake McGavick did. If he had given a correct account, it would have blown over instead of finding renewed life. If you had stuck to the facts, he’d be hung by his own misrepresentations- instead, the piling on begins to make him look like a martyr for all of the additional bogus facts and spin being piled on.

And while everyone is staying so focused on this one misdeed, what else in the political world goes unreported? I am so thrilled that our state’s political reporters continue to think this is the biggest story out there, day after day, for over a week. All this, and not one mention of the $75,000 the BIAW dumped in behind John Groen this past week…

I’m beginning to believe that this was all a stunt set up by the GOP to divert attention from everything else…

@17 What are you talking about? I asked a question. There is no substansive difference between what the paper reported and what Goldy wrote.

Think before you post.

Commentby My Left Foot— 9/2/06@ 3:52 pm

Left Foot- you might READ and THINK before you post. As I indicated in my first post, both the papers, AND Goldy, are embellishing beyond what was in the police report. Did you miss the part about the papers embellishing? Have yo read what the POLICE REPORT sats, versus what the reporters wrote.

Original sources, people. No one- not McGavick, not the reporters, not Goldy- have stuck to what is documented versus what everyone chooses to spin.

And Goldy- didn’t your college professors slap you down like mine would have for having a footnote (a link to the police report) where the original source material does NOT support the assertion made in the main body of the paper?

I’m starting to question the whole notion that judicial elections are “non partisan”. While judges may exhibit different degrees of judicial activism, I think it’s dishonest to suggest that judges don’t have a biases that comes through in their decisions.

Everything that a person sees… everything they read and hear, every judgement that they make… every situation encountered is processed by their life experiences and their resultant biases.

Don’t you think it would make for more honest elections if a judge were forced to disclose their political bias when they run?

Semantics. One word did not change either the meaning or the tone. He had too much to drink. Period. Whether he uttered “Ohhh, I don’t know” or not, makes no difference. It is not important. What is important is that in his truthful confession, he lied.

There are other issues, I agree. But if a man running for United States Senator lies, that is a big story.

McGavick should have gotten the police report, and had his staff write up the PR from it, rather than from his recollection. That would have avoided this embarrassment. I have to admit it does call into question his judgement.

But I’m having troubles believing all the santimoniousness going on here. Did any of you call for Judge Bobbe Bridge to resign when she was similarly arrested? She also denied having had much to drink. And that happened while she was a sitting judge, not 13 years prior. If a DUI disqualifies McGavick, then Bridge should step down.

There is a difference between someone who is already in office and someone who is running for office. Clinton could not have gotten re-elected if the Lewinsky thing had broken before the 1996 election, and the Democrats probably would have forced him to withdraw. However, it was not serious enough to remove him from office. Same with Justice Bridge. I suspect she will have a tough time being re-elected but a DUI is not necessarily grounds for resignation.

1.) He brought his DUI arrest up voluntarily, which is admirable at the least. 2.) It was 13 years ago-who gives a shit now other than whiney liberals looking for a spec of dirt and a dustball. 3.) Washington Law/RCW DUI’s were .10 then, not .08 as they are now. (Mike! had a .17) 4.) I ask how many of you morons on this blog have been stopped for, arrested for, charged with, plead down from, or convicted of, a DUI/DWI. It’s not the crime of the century, and apparently Mike! like most other sane people learn from the experience and do not get a second. 5.) Maria “Cant-vote-well” is certainly not the halo wearing angel as you people make her out to be. She most definetely has her share of faults.

Finally, I believe that the unjustified, juvenile, and trivial mud-slinging attacks at Mike! is probably just showing the fear that he just might win this race and put good ‘ole Maria in the Sound where she belongs. Have a good three-day weekend all!

In Cornfield’s original report the phrase “during the previous five hours” was not given as a direct quote from the police report. Adding the phrase accurately frames the context of police officer’s question. Implicit in the question was “how many drinks have you had” this evening. Thus, there is nothing added to the story but some clarity has been offered to Cornfield’s readers on the intent of the officer’s question.

“Original sources, people. No one- not McGavick, not the reporters, not Goldy- have stuck to what is documented versus what everyone chooses to spin.”

Neither Cornfield’s nor Goldy’s statements misquote the police report. Both Cornfield and Goldy added interpretation to the incident about McGavick’s character, but that is what journalists and bloggers do. Both did so without any distortion of the underlying facts given in the police report.

“And Goldy- didn’t your college professors slap you down like mine would have for having a footnote (a link to the police report) where the original source material does NOT support the assertion made in the main body of the paper?”

I am a college professor, and find no flaws in how Goldy cited the unique sources he used for both this post and the 09/01 post. The 09/01 post was based almost entirely on the Cornfield report; it is properly cited and all quotations are properly indicated. (Note: the police report was not available to Goldy at the time he wrote the post; Goldy did not hide that his understanding of what was in the police report came from the Cornfield piece).

The current post is based on numerous sources (blogs, newspaper articles). There is no ambiguity in Goldy’s citations. He clearly links to of them. Perhaps your criticism is that Goldy didn’t link to the police report in this post? If so, your criticism is unfounded. Linking to the police report would have been convenient for reader, but the link to the pdf file is readily found in several of the links. Goldy’s main point is not about the police report. It is about the press reaction to McGavick’s lying and the implications of McGavick’s lying.

Jim, you seem to be blinded by your own anger. Your arguments come off as petty and are illogical. Frankly, you come off as downright silly by pushing your argument.

Put the Kool-Aid down and back away from the table. He, Mike?. fucked himself the ass with his own dick. No one was after him. He hung himself with his own rope. He has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the Senate seat he covets. He would not be elected dog catcher now. He lied. He flat out lied in telling the “truth”. I never dreamed that I would write that sentence. He flat out lied in telling the truth. There is irony.

JCHerman, as is his want and lot in life, has once again posted something totally worthless. The people of MA have elected and relected Senator Kennedy. That is their right. It has nothing to do with the case here in WA and certainly NOTHING to do with Pahoa, HI.

Daryl- I am glad you were there thirteen years ago so that you know what the context of the officer’s questions were. As for you being a college professor- I feel for your students if you let them get awawy with that kind of sloppy work.

The bottom line is that in a Bizarro-worls way, Cornfield, Goldy, and others have been adjusting the facts to fit their story- the very thing they accused McGavick of doing. Goldie gets hyper and over the top, and bloggers don’t get held to journalistic standards, but he’d already been called on the “only” embellishment- so this time he took it outside the quotations. A reader reads “only two or three beers in five hours”, not “I don’t know- two, maybe three beers.”

Big difference, especially when the inaccurate words are being put in McGavick’s mouth, then claimed to be a lie by McGavick.

Commentby My Left Foot[………………No war for oil!!! No nukes! No drilling!! No new refinerers! No tankers in US harbors! Add another 50 cent a gallon Federal tax on gallon!! Tax oil companies even more!! No drilling in the Gulf or off California!! Oh, and I I want lower gas prices!!! Carl Grossman, the Classic “Progressive” Democrat economic idiot!!!]

Quoting from the gawd of global warming: “Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming. Ladies and gentlemen, the warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences.” http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0912-32.htm

For you moonbats who know how to use Excel, try this: Take the above data and plot it in chart form. Then apply a trendline to it. If you use a second order polynomial, you’ll find an R^2 value of 89% which is a pretty darn good indication that the number of major hurricanes has been decreasing for 60 fucking years. 2005 is what is known in the adult world as an “anomaly.

If Algore was right, we should have had at least 15 major hurricanes in 2006 by now. How many have we actually had? Umm…. Zero. None. Zip. Nada. So where is the “string of terrible catastrophes”?

Could it be that Algore is full of shit? Could it be that the link between hurricanes and global warming is weak at best? Could it be that you koolaid drinkers need to re-examine your position? Nah….

Lemme see here. I mention lower gas prices and JCH goe on a rant about drilling and tankers and taxing oil companies.

JCHerman has a convienent way of compartmentalizing issues and sentences. I said nothing about the issues he raised. He again went off on his scare tactic Republican talking point. He did not address the central issue…..that Republicans have failed in their attempt to run the government.

The war in Iraq is a total clusterfuck. The price of gas is through the roof. The stock market is rocky at best. This country is viewed as a pariah around the world. We have to worry about who is listening to our conversations. The vast resources of this country are not being used to benefit THIS COUNTRY. If a tidal wave hits Hawaii tomorrow, I hope John Craig can tread water…..for a week.

Again, this is nothing to do with oil reserves or drilling or any conservation issue. The administration has failed across the board in running this country. Soldiers are dying with no end, or end plan, in sight. The president is still harping on terrorism. I am a traitor if I disagree with him.

For the record, Keith Olbermann spoke for most, the majority of, the biggest part, more than not (so small minds understand) of the American public this week and I agree 100% with him.

My freedom of speech is being attacked. My right to use a phone without being spied on is under attack. What is next…checkpoints between cities so they can inspect my documents?

No thank you. It is time for change. It is time for a government that is responsive to the publics will.

Joker @ 44 — This dataset counts only hurricanes impacting the US mainland (not all hurricanes, or even all local hurricanes). Note that 2001-2004 is not a decade, and neither is 2005. If you plot a chart with unequal time intervals and then take a second-order polynomial fit on as few as 8 data points from a subset of the available global data, you get: a statistical joke.

Note also that the first hurricane strike had not even occurred by this calendar date in most years … though the first strike has occurred by this date in 11 of the past 15 calendar years.

The is no excuse for your behaviour. I suggest withdrawing from the race now, save the money from your bonus, go celebrate your relationship with your wife and enjoy the $28m bonus. Commentby My Left Foot— 9/2/06@ 2:23 pm

TwoLeftFeet: Safeco said they gave Mike! around $6 Million. So why do you claim $28 Million still? Keep the lie alive.

”Daryl- I am glad you were there thirteen years ago so that you know what the context of the officer’s questions were.”

I wasn’t there. But, neither did I claim to be there. The context of the Officer’s questions is evident from the police report and the activity he was performing. My interpretation is the only one that makes sense in the situation of a police officer trying to ascertain whether or not a driver is DUI. (That is, he didn’t want to know how many drinks McGavick had in the last year, month, week or even the 24 last hours. Rather, he wanted to know how many drinks he had had in a period of time relevant to his condition at the time.

”As for you being a college professor- I feel for your students if you let them get awawy with that kind of sloppy work.”

What kind of sloppy work would that be? (BTW: I notice that you misspelled both my name and Goldy’s. And, you misquote Goldy below. Uh-huh…there is an issue of “sloppy work” here, but it isn’t with my students).

”The bottom line is that in a Bizarro-worls way, Cornfield, Goldy, and others have been adjusting the facts to fit their story- the very thing they accused McGavick of doing.”

No they aren’t. You are mistaking “adjusting facts” with using the facts given to develop an interpretation of McGavick’s integrity. Clearly, you don’t like the interpretation they have made, but that shouldn’t be an excuse for you to blatantly confuse their use of facts versus the subsequent opinion offered. That is an amateurish error.

”Goldie gets hyper and over the top, and bloggers don’t get held to journalistic standards,”

So? Goldy freely admits he is a partisan interpreter of the world. It is his blog, so he can say whatever the hell he wants to say.

“… but he’d already been called on the “only” embellishment- so this time he took it outside the quotations.”

So, either he lied to reporters that he knew he shouldn’t have been driving, or he lied to the police when he said he’d only had “two, maybe three beers” during the previous five hours.

The “only” was not attributed to McGavick. Goldy was using “only” in an idiomatic sense to indicate a contrast—in this case an implicit contrast with the number of drinks required for a 0.17 BAC. He could have substituted “a mere” and made the same point.’A reader reads “only two or three beers in five hours”, not “I don’t know- two, maybe three beers.”’

In fact, Goldy quoted “two, maybe three beers” faithfully. It seems as though you are the one making stuff up, here, Jim. As for the “I don’t know” part, it does not change the context. Clearly, McGavick either contradicted himself (first saying “I don’t know” and then “two, maybe three beers”), or (more likely)he was using the phrase “I don’t know” in the common sense to suggest that the forthcoming is an estimate. (For example, if you asked me how old an acquaintance is, I might say, “Oh, I don’t know, 40, 45 years old.” That is understood to mean, “Approximately 40 to 45 years old.”). Adding the “Oh, I don’t know” to Goldy’s statement adds nothing to the meaning—especially since the “maybe” was in there—but would make the sentence awkward…. Goldy did not attribute the “during the previous five hours.” to McGavick—clearly, that came right from Cornfield’s description. In either case, it is difficult to see how that is anything but neutral. It neither hurts nor helps McGavick.”Big difference, especially when the inaccurate words are being put in McGavick’s mouth, then claimed to be a lie by McGavick.”

No…it makes no difference whatsoever. McGavick estimated his consumption, and either he lied to the police officer (estimating much lower than reality—an estimate that would be the difference between a low BAC and a high BAC), or he lied in claiming that he knew he had too much to drink when he saw the lights.

Again, it appears your anger over this issue is requiring you to twist the interpretation outside the realm of ordinary interpretation of the language involved. It has caused you to make factual errors, as well (like misquoting Goldy). Snap out of it…you are making yourself look ridiculous!

If a tidal wave hits Hawaii tomorrow, I hope John Craig can tread water…..

Commentby My Left Foot [……………….Carl, I’m at 500 feet above sea level, and I have USAA insurance [military officer”s]. That makes me a lot different than the New Orleans Democrat third generation welfare hacks that rely on “guvment” and looting to meet their “mofo wants and needs”. Carl, I BOUUGHT my 42 inch HD TV. I didn’t “loot it”, and then blame Bush. GET THE DIFFERENCE???????]

“Safeco said they gave Mike! around $6 Million. So why do you claim $28 Million still? Keep the lie alive.”

You are confusing McGavick’s 2006 salary with the total value of compensation he received from Safeco in 2006.

McGavick disclosed a salary of $6.7 Million from Safeco in 2006. However, his total compensation, including salary and bonuses was $28.4 Million according to his own disclosure provided on June 16th

Under his original contract, McGavick was entitled only to his last paycheck. He would have had to forfeit all bonuses and stock options when he resigned.

The lawsuit charges that the Executive Transition Services Agreement that McGavick and Safeco executed in early December 2005 constituted fraud, so “a significant portion of the $28.4 million dollars McGavick received from Safeco in 2006 after he resigned as Safeco’s CEO resulted from a fraudulent transaction between McGavick and the Board of Directors.”

I see that JCHerman, liar extraordinaire, is at it again. Nice to know what size TV he has. I am sure his penis went instantly erect (both inches) when he typed that. He assumes all Blacks are worthless, shiftless losers. Barack Obama may enjoy shoving those words down his throat. How ignorant can one man (term used loosely) be?

The more I think about it, I am hoping the Dems run at tandem of John Edwards and Barack Obama. That might get John Craig to move to, oh I don’t know, Germany.

“So Darryl, seems to me you and the libs are upset on the stock options not his salary. Is this correct?”

I don’t think I can speak for “libs” in general, but for me the total package is the problem. His renegotiated “compensation” of $28 million for two months of part-time work in 2006 is a problem. I mean, really, even if McGavick and the Safeco Board of Directors prevail in the lawsuit, the Executive Transition Services Agreement smacks of a quid pro quo bordering on buying a politician. This is exactly the kind of corruption that has turned voters sour on Congress. McGavick really should have known better!

Carl, was that you waist deep in the New Orleans floods looting the 42 Sony HD TVs? Not a Republican around for miles!! And did you get you 2000 dollar “debit card” for your Marlboros, King Cobra, KFC, and Black Velvet? If Bush wasn’t soooooo cheap the card would have been 5 or 6 grand, right?

Tell you what, JCH, if Condi and JC get through the republican convention, I’ll give them my vote. Do you really believe the party that makes a stop at Bob Jones Campus an obligatory part of a presidential campaign run would let them through?

Richard Pope has asked that Mike voluntarily withdraw his candidacy. Richard, who was outraged that Darcy Burner had a traffic citation a few years ago (NOT for drunk driving and NOT resulting in arrest) has made the candidate’s driving record a direct reflection on their suitability for holding office.

“Such an egregious offense, where McGavick put his passenger and other road user’s lives in grave danger, is equivalent to randomly shooting a handgun into a classroom. Do it often enough, and someone WILL be killed or hurt. He should announce his decision to not pursue public office immediately.”

Mr. Hate is at it again. Now we are going to ignore a man because of his middle name. That is perfectly logical reasoning. Hussein. Wow.

JCH is a poor example of a human being. He must have grown up in a lily with neighborhood as the short, skinny, pimply faced nerd (he remains the same today) who was scared of everything not like him. Sad. Very sad.

He is a liar, a bigot, a cheater, a whore for the conservative faction. He is unable to accept change or differences. He find it necessary to lie about his standing to build his falsely inflated ego.

Yes. Christians dont care about skin color. They do however care about your core beliefs. If you dont have the right beliefs than they wont vote for you…period. God bless the Christian and god bless America

“Hey Roger or Socialist you do pin by the same name?” Commentby Anonymous— 9/2/06@ 3:56 pm

Wrong on all counts. I’m not Socialist, Socialist is not Roger, and I’m not a socialist. I’m a capitalist bunny. But then, you’ve never been right, ever, about anything in your entire miserable useless little life.

Folks, let’s not overlook the judicial races. Our state Supreme Court is under attack by the right wing. Vote for Alexander, Owens, and Chambers.

Chief Justice Alexander is an experienced, able, and generally liberal jurist who is highly regarded in the legal profession. His opponent, John Groen, is a big-firm lawyer who shills for property-rights nuts. Here’s what The Stranger says about the guy Groen offered that newspaper as a character reference. Trust me, this is worth reading — for amusement.

“During his Stranger Election Control Board interview … Groen repeatedly dodged questions about the (gay marriage) issue. As a prospective judge, Groen insisted he wasn’t free to weigh in on issues that might come before him in a legal capacity. However, he was happy to provide us with the name and phone number of an actual homosexual he counted as a friend, who could gaily vouch for him. …

“Groen’s gay friend is an Oregon man named Geoff Thompson, a former country-western singer who appeared as a Playgirl centerfold before purchasing the Viewpoint Inn in Corbett, Oregon. ‘Talking with Thompson is like talking with someone who has a syndrome like Tourette’s, but one that compels not only profanity but also grandiose claims, deeply cutting insults, and threats,’ wrote Willamette Week’s Patty Wentz in 1999, when Thomson was embroiled in a salacious land-use dispute. Hmm, guess where property-rights guy Groen comes in?

“Thomson’s continued displays of anger and ‘physical and verbal threats’ against staff at four Multnomah County agencies led to his being banned from all county offices. This is a character reference? For a man who wants to be a judge?”

Let’s recap: A right-wing big-firm property rights lawyer who wants us to choose him over one of our state’s most respected jurists for our state’s highest court offers us, as a character reference, a nut job who was banned from the offices of four county agencies for bullying and threatening public workers. Hmmm.

Hey Roger or Socialist you do pin by the same name?” Commentby Anonymous— 9/2/06@ 3:56 pm

Wrong on all counts. I’m not Socialist, Socialist is not Roger, and I’m not a socialist. I’m a capitalist bunny. But then, you’ve never been right, ever, about anything in your entire miserable useless little life.

Commentby Roger Rabbit— 9/2/06@ 11:35 pm

———————————————- ———————————————- “The Socialist” is probably a Roger Rodent alias: compare this; “I think we should deport all the christofastist to the holly land were they belong and then they can slug it out with the rest of the religious nuts. :-/” Commentby The Socialist—— 8/27/06@ 2:56 pm ‘‘Hey Goldy –– how about putting in a plug for the ““Save Redneck Fund”? We’’re gonna send Redneck to a California Jesus camp, where counselors will instill Christian values into his worthless ass.’ With a very LARGE statue of Jesus no doubt :-/” Commentby The Socialist—— 8/27/06@ 2:59 pm

with this;

“How about putting him and all his Republican buddies in a shipping container and sending them to Jesusland. We don’t need his ilk around here.” Comment by Roger Rabbit —— 10/27/05 @ 9:38 am

“Lincoln made a mistake fighting the Civil War to keep the union together. He should have let these fucks keep Jesusland and live in their own fucking country.” Commentby Roger Rabbit———— 6/19/06@ 9:58 pm

To tell the truth, I don’t care what YOU think, fascist fuck. However, I wouldn’t want your clumsy research to mislead innocent readers of this family-rated blog.

I posted this: “Hey Goldy –– how about putting in a plug for the ‘Save Redneck Fund’? We’re gonna send Redneck to a California Jesus camp, where counselors will instill Christian values into his worthless ass.”

Socialist then picked it up and added: “With a very LARGE statue of Jesus no doubt :-/”

In other words, fascist fuck combined two posts — one by me, and one by Socialist — and made it look like one post. Way to go, dickhead!

As long as you’re into this sleuthing shit, why don’t you try comparing Socialist’s spelling with mine, and see what you come up with? (As I recall, Socialist posted that his misspellings are deliberate; mine are typos — you ever tried typing on a miniature keyboard with furry paws?)

76, Try looking at post 11 on the 8-27-06 “The David Goldstein Show” thread, rodent. It is one post, I didn’t combine it, you lying POS.

BTW, that is quite some ringing endorsement “Folks, let’s not overlook the judicial races. Our state Supreme Court is under attack by the right wing. Vote for Alexander, Owens, and Chambers,” Commentby Roger Rabbit— 9/2/06@ 11:45 pm

coming from a defeatist POS like you;

“It should be obvious what the exit strategy is. We’re going to lose, and we’re going to pack up and go home. On our way out, the last Americans will be lifted off rooftops by helicopters. I hate to sound like a pessimistic, but as we learned in Vietnam and the Russians learned in Afghanistan, even superpowers can’t defeat a determined, sustained, indigenous guerilla resistance. There is no reputable military thinker in the world who claims to know who to win an urban guerilla war, or who believes it can be done.” Comment by Roger Rabbit —— 4/12/06 @ 10:45 am .

“Hey Rabbit – A while ago, you claimed to be a judge. Is that right? I’m starting to question the whole notion that judicial elections are ‘non partisan’. While judges may exhibit different degrees of judicial activism, I think it’s dishonest to suggest that judges don’t have a biases that comes through in their decisions. Everything that a person sees… everything they read and hear, every judgement that they make… every situation encountered is processed by their life experiences and their resultant biases. Don’t you think it would make for more honest elections if a judge were forced to disclose their political bias when they run?” Commentby Mark The Redneck KENNEDY— 9/2/06@ 4:46 pm

Geez, Mark, I didn’t think you were capable of such deep thoughts. The whole question of how judges should be chosen is very complicated. My sentiments lean toward populist, so I’m in favor of electing them. Not letting candidates campaign for judicial office by saying, “If you elect me, I’ll vote for (against) __________ (fill in blank)” should be a no-brainer. Our state goes farther and says they can’t campaign on legal issues, period. So what does that leave them? They can say, “I served in the military, I’m married and have 2 kids and 4 grandkids, and I’m a good guy.” That’s about it.

Most (if not all) judicial candidates leave a trail behind them, though. We know who Jim Johnson is, and can predict what he’d do on the bench, because he was a high-profile assistant attorney general for a long time. We know approximately what John Groen would be like, because BIAW is bankrolling his campaign.

If judicial races are becoming partisan, it’s because the right wing is making a conscious, overt effort to get right wing judges on the courts. Slapping “Republican” or “Democrat” labels on them might be useful to some voters, but anyone who pays attention can’t fail to know who’s “liberal” and who’s “conservative.” All you have to do is look at where they’re getting their campaign money from. Or the newspapers will tell you. Or special interest groups will.

Personally, I don’t think party labels are a good idea. The judiciary is supposed to be above partisanship. Their job is to referee the partisan battles fought in the legislative and executive branches. Additionally, if we call judicial offices “non-partisan,” maybe it’ll encourage judges to think of themselves as non-partisan, and act accordingly. That’s the theory behind it, anyway. Judges are supposed to decide cases according to the facts and law, not their personal or political philosophy — and good judges do exactly that. Maybe a liberal judge opposes the death penalty, but he’ll follow the law and uphold the death sentence in the absence of a legal error in its imposition. That’s how it’s supposed to work, and does work most of the time. It’s hard for me to see how we can improve on it, and I can see a lot of ways that tinkering with the system could degrade the quality of judicial decision making.

The lying POS is you, not me. Try looking at post 6 AND post 11 on the 8-27-06 “The David Goldstein Show” thread, dickhead! To wit:

“6. Hey Goldy – how about putting in a plug for the ‘Save Redneck Fund’? We’re gonna send Redneck to a California Jesus camp, where counselors will instill Christian values into his worthless ass.

Commentby Roger Rabbit— 8/27/06@ 2:49 pm”

“11. Hey Goldy – how about putting in a plug for the ‘Save Redneck Fund’? We’re gonna send Redneck to a California Jesus camp, where counselors will instill Christian values into his worthless ass.

With a very LARGE statue of Jesus no doubt :-/

Commentby The Socialist— 8/27/06@ 2:59 pm”

Now I suppose you want people to believe you searched through that thread and managed to find post #11 without seeing post #6, you lying dickhead. Any 6th grader can figure out that Socialist was quoting my post at 6 and then adding his own comment, so we can only conclude that you dropped out BEFORE 6th grade. Or maybe your parents sent you to one of those special schools where you stay in 1st grade for 12 years. Or maybe you’re just a fucking liar, or a dickhead who’s too stupid to know when he’s lying.

Or here’s a really good one. Let’s take a look at posts 5 and 6 in that same thread:

“Hey mark the buttneck:(AKA) SHITHEAD.

Sit down and shut the fuck up all ready

Commentby The Socialist— 8/27/06@ 2:49 pm”

“Hey Goldy – how about putting in a plug for the “Save Redneck Fund”? We’re gonna send Redneck to a California Jesus camp, where counselors will instill Christian values into his worthless ass.

Commentby Roger Rabbit— 8/27/06@ 2:49 pm”

Notice anything? Yeah, that’s right, they both posted at 2:49 pm. If Socialist and Roger Rabbit are the same person, how the hell could I have typed and posted both of this comments in less than 1 minute? Huh? I suppose fascist fuck’s alibi will be that he didn’t see post #5 either. What a dick. And we have to let these dumbass vote. Shit. What else can I say? Shit. We have to let them vote.

82, You said, “In other words, fascist fuck combined two posts – one by me, and one by Socialist – and made it look like one post. Way to go, dickhead!” Commentby Roger Rabbit— 9/2/06@ 11:56 pm —————————————– I did no such thing. You are a lying POS.

3) @74, you jumped in and said, “’The Socialist’ is probably a Roger Rodent alias” and to prove it you asked readers to compare two purported comments by “Socialist,” one of which was,

“Hey Goldy –– how about putting in a plug for the ““Save Redneck Fund”? We’re gonna send Redneck to a California Jesus camp, where counselors will instill Christian values into his worthless ass.’ With a very LARGE statue of Jesus no doubt :-/” Commentby The Socialist—— 8/27/06@ 2:59 pm”

News flash to dickhead: That DID combine a Roger Rabbit post with a Socialist post! Go back and read #6 and #11 (in sequence) again, dumbass! Did Socialist use quote marks and attribution? No. Should he have? Yes. But that doesn’t excuse you. The two comments were only 5 posts apart. You couldn’t possibly have copied and pasted #11 without seeing #6 unless you’re fucking BLIND!!! — or an idiot. I like the lying theory better.

But the smoking gun is #5. Maybe you’d like to take a run at explaining how I could have posted two comments at the same time? Or are you ready to concede that you had your head up your ass, and Socialist and Roger Rabbit are two different posters?

Answer the fucking question: Do you still contend that Roger Rabbit and Socialist are the same person, or do the two posts at 2:49 pm convince you that Roger Rabbit and Socialist are two different posters? If not, how do you explain away the simultaneous postings? And WHY didn’t you see that before going off on a tear with #11?

I don’t have any more time for this horse shit! I was supposed to be at “work” at 1:00 p.m. Stefan probably is waiting at his window with his shotgun, wondering why I’m late. Later, trollfuck traitor! I’ve got a whole garden to eat! I’ll see you when I see you — unless they hang you first.

That’s your answer? You call THAT an answer? No wonder the entire rational world thinks all you wingnuts have dicks in your ears, in your mouths, in your asses, and in your belly buttons. Good fucking night! I’ll see you in the morning, fascist.

It isn’t plausible that, if Socialist is an alias for a regular here, the commenter is a liberal. If Socialist is actually an individual posting only under that screen name, he is completely ignorant of American liberalism.

My opinion is that Socialist is Mark the Redneck. He certainly displays the ignorance necessary, as well as the chutzpah to believe he could pull off multiple IDs.

Consider the following exchange from the 7/25 thread “Gay marriage decision coming tomorrow”. I have highlighted the posts of interest.

#3

I’m still waiting for one of you delerious moonbats to splain why a guy should get special privileges just because he likes the feeling of having a dick up his ass.

Commentby Mark The Redneck— 7/25/06@ 1:12 pm

#4

It depends on the basis of the decision. If it is based on the state constitution, the Supremes can’t review it, except on the basis that the US Constitution somehow over-rides it.

Commentby wayne— 7/25/06@ 1:13 pm

#5

Hate to say it, but, I think they will uphold the decision.

Commentby Particle Man— 7/25/06@ 1:25 pm

#6

What special priveleges do you want, Mark?

Commentby Dr. E— 7/25/06@ 1:31 pm

#7

I predict that the Washington Supreme Court will, in a sharply divided opinion, take some sort of middle ground position based upon an interpretation of the state constitution.

The majority opinion will mandate that Washington state law establish some sort of “civil unions” resembling, more or less, what the Vermont legislature enacted several years ago in response to a similar case before that state’s supreme court.

The majority will find that the marriage laws give many benefits to a man and woman who marry, including a statutory economic contract – i.e. community property, mutual support during marriage, division of property, possibility of spousal support after dissolution. So these economic benefits will be declared fundamental to same sex couples as well through civil unions. And maybe even to opposite sex couples who want these economic benefits without getting formally married.

This is my prediction based upon my perception of the various justice’s likely legal philosophy, as well as the political realities involved.

If such a middle ground approach is not taken, then I will say it is more likely that a narrow majority will uphold present state law as written than having a majority (of whatever size) mandate same sex marriage on exactly the same terms as present law.

But we will see. In any event, the decision has been far too long in coming – nearly a year and a half since oral argument, when most cases are decided in 90 days.

There certainly are political elements in timing – coming on Wednesday during candidate filing week, when three incumbent justices are seeking re-election.

Commentby Richard Pope— 7/25/06@ 1:40 pm

#8

mark we don’t really care what you like up your ass.

Commentby The Socialist— 7/25/06@ 1:44 pm

#9 I don’t see why gay people should be allowed to not get married and be miserable like the rest of us !!

Commentby The Socialist— 7/25/06@ 1:46 pm

#10

3.

No one cares what a welsher thinks. You have no credibility.

Commentby Harry Tuttle— 7/25/06@ 1:47 pm

#11

If republican Christians really cared about protecting marriage they would be trying to make divorces illegal and adultery illegal.

Commentby The Socialist— 7/25/06@ 1:49 pm

#12

Im not a welsher im IRISH you boob

Commentby The Socialist— 7/25/06@ 1:50 pm

#13

@3

Well MTR if anyone should know – it’s you!

Commentby LeftTurn— 7/25/06@ 1:51 pm

#14

12.

So, we find that Socialist is MTR, in drag.

Commentby Harry Tuttle— 7/25/06@ 1:53 pm

MTR spouts of at #3, Harry Tuttle replies with standard payment demand at #10, MTR replies under the Socialist tag that he forgot to change before posting at #12.

McGavick campaign spokesman Elliott Bundy said the $28.4 million “was a combination of his compensation for leaving the company.” He said $17,000 was earnings for the two-month transition period, $2.3 million was McGavick’s bonus for 2005 “and the rest was (exercising of) stock options previously granted” over the course of his Safeco tenure.

In addition, McGavick was given about $3.3 million in accelerated stock options for helping the company through its leadership transition and agreeing not to work for competitors for three years.

Knoll Lowney, one of Schwartzman’s lawyers and a prominent backer of local liberal causes, said McGavick and Safeco agreed to “an illegal giveaway of Safeco assets” in an agreement last Dec. 6, after McGavick became a candidate, for him to provide transition services for the first two months of 2006, resulting in $28.4 million in Safeco income for 2006. Lowney said it violated a contract McGavick negotiated when he became chief executive in 2001 that “clearly stated that if he resigned he would … forfeit all compensation, including bonuses and stock options, and would get only his last paycheck.”

I was arrested for DWI in 1978, was ooffered deferred prosecution, completed two courses of alcohol classes at local Community Alcohol Centers, and the charge was dismissed. I have no DWI on my record.

The “two or three beers” discssion is silly. First, so many people say this or similar words that it’s a running joke among the police (mentioned earlier, I know). But then, most people aren’t running for the Senate. For whatever to is worth, it DOES make a difference TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO SELECT A SENATOR whether one person has lied to the police or another has not. The voters are also concerned about whether a candidate lies to THEM. And it seems Mike! has, in his self-serving statement about cutting a yellow light too closely (not quoting him here, folks). For thosae of you who clam that this is splitting hairs, please try to remember that you are the same people who swore up and down the Clinton LIED when, after a full day of legal wranging over the exact definition of “sexual relations,” answered in teh negative when asked if he had had relations AS DEFINED BY THE COURT. I thnk that at leaast Clinton had a better rationale than Mike!, who just seemed to be putting lipstick on a particularly ugly pig.

The DUI may have been a pass for McGavick with most voters – although he disappointed a lot of republicans and other people. In the general election it might cost him 2% had he played it right.

But he didn’t tell the whole truth about it. It’s DUI weekend in the state. Anti-DUi spots are all over the radio. Victims of DUIs are on TV. Newspapers are running editorials on drinking and drivin . And McGavick’s less than honest story about his DUI is out there this weekend too.

I’d say it has now cost him 8% or more because it makes his campaign look like dunderheaded to potential donors. The DUI blunders, combined with the trifecta trickster blunder, will send GOP money to other campaigns.

Rabbit 81 – Thanks for the reply. You made reference to finding the trail of decisions left by experienced judges. Is there a convenient place to get all that information? That is, is there a website someplace that lists all a judges decisions along with summaries of the cases?

FWIW, when I vote for judges I use Carlson’s recommendations in their entirety.

Daddy -Let me remind you… CLinton was impeached and disbarred because he lied to a grand jury in attempt to conceal a pattern of predatory behavior in connection with a sexual assault case that he later settled for $800,000.

Jeeez, MTR some agy men are tops and like the feeling of aving a dick IN someone’s ass but not so much the other way. You also exclude lesbians. And, of courser, bisexuals and the transgenedered. This of course, is why the anti-gay-marriage position is so untenable. You end up having to deny equal rights to a broader and broader swath of people, all of whom vote and who are represented. It’s totally the losing side.

Here’s something for everone’s enjoyment. This letter to the editor appeared in the 2/11/04 “Anderson Valley Advertiser” for your instruction or amusement, or both. It actually explains a lot of what goes on here.

Editor,

When you occasionally have a really bad day and you just need to take it out on someone, don’t take it out on someone you know, take it out on someone you don’t know.

I was sitting at my desk looking out on State Street when I remembered a phone call I had forgotten to make. I found the number and dialed it.

Suddenly the phone was slammed down on me. I couldn’t believe that anyone could be so rude.

I tracked down Robin’s correct number and called her. I had transposed the last two digits of her phone number. After hanging up with her I decided to call the “wrong” number again.

When the same guy answered the phone I yelled, “You’re an asshole!” and hung up.

I wrote his number down with the word “asshole” next to it and put it in my desk drawer. Every couple of weeks, when I’m paying bills or having a really bad day, I call him up and yell, “You’re an asshole!” It always cheers me up.

When Caller ID came to Ukiah I thought my therapeutic “asshole” calling would have to stop. So I called his number and said, “Hi, this is John Smith from the Telephone Company. I’m just calling to see if you’re familiar with the Caller ID program.”

He yelled, “NO!” and slammed the phone down.

I quickly called him back and said, “That’s because you’re an asshole!”

One day I was at Safeway getting ready to pull into a parking spot. Some guy in a black BMW cut me off and pulled into the spot I had patiently waited for. I hit the horn and yelled that I had been waiting for the spot! The idiot ignored me. I noticed a “For Sale” sign in his car window so wrote down his number.

A couple of days later, right after calling the first asshole (I had his number on speed dial), I thought I’d better call the BMW asshole too.

I said, “Is this the man with the black BMW for sale?”

“Yes, it is.”

“Can you tell me where I can see it?”

“Yes, I live at 1802 Pine Street. It’s a yellow house and the car’s parked right out front.”

“What’s your name?” I asked

“My name is Don Hansen,” he said.

“When’s a good time to catch you, Don?”

“I’m home every evening after five.”

“Listen, Don, can I tell you something?”

“Yes.”

“Don, you’re an asshole.” Then I hung up and added his number to my speed dial too! This way, when I have a problem I have two assholes to call.

… I’d been doing this for several months, but it wasn’t as enjoyable as it used to be. So I’ve come up with an idea. I called Asshole #1.

“Hello.”

“You’re an asshole!” (But I didn’t hang up.)

“Are you still there?” he asked.

“Yeah,” I said.

“Stop calling me,” he screamed.

“Make me,” I said.

“Who are you?” he asked.

“My name is Don Hansen.”

“Yeah? Where do you live?”

“Asshole, I live at 1802 Pine Street, a yellow house, with my black beamer parked in front.”

He said, “I’m coming over right now, Don. And you had better start saying your prayers.”

Then I hung up and immediately called the police, saying that I lived at 1802 Pine Street and my gay lover had threatened to kill me and was o his way. Then I called Channel 50 News about the gang war that had broken out down on Pine Street. I quickly got into my car and headed over to Pine Street. There I saw two assholes beating the crap out of each other in front of six squad cars and a reporter from the Ukiah Daily Journal.

Daddy Love at 103: Do you have a link to the McGavick spokesman’s explanation of the Safeco windfall? I would like to read the actual language of that statement.

Actually, I’d like to read the actual compensation agreements – the original one he signed when he was hired, any amendments to it over the course of his employment, and the final one where he resigned.

I’m not sure the explanation by McGavick’s spokesman really makes a difference – 17 million vs. 28.4 million for two month’s of part-time “availability” to answer questions? Clearly that’s not what the payment really covers.

And yet McGavick’s spokesman feels compelled to break out 3.3 million as “$3.3 million in accelerated stock options for helping the company through its leadership transition and agreeing not to work for competitors for three years”? Wouldn’t “helping the company through its leadership transition” be the same services as he was to perform during those two months for which he was paid 17 million? If not, then what was the 17 million for?

And how does the non-compete agreement differ from the one he was already obliged to adhere to under the original agreement? Surely Safeco didn’t hire a CEO without having a non-compete agreement as part of the package?

As usual, the explanation raises more questions than answers. I’d like to see the original documents for myself. Does anyone know if they are posted online?

MTR He was impeached becausae the Republicans had the votes to do so and they wantged the presidency in 200.

He was disbarred (for five years, BTW, which has since expired)because of “serious misconduct” in Arkansas but was fined for giving “intentionally false” testimony.

Your assertion that his testimony was an “attempt to conceal a pattern of predatory behavior in connection with a sexual assault case” is your own pejorative slur.

The Paula Jones civil, not criminal, case was for sexual harassment, not “sexual aasault” and it was, of course, dismissed in a summary judgment when Judge Susan Wright concluded that “There are no genuine issues for trial.” Clinton’s settlement of her appeal (as they pretty much always are) was made and ACCEPTED BY JONES without the president admitting any liability. This is a normal way of getting rid of wel-funded nuisance suits. Jones was a tool of Scaife’s get-Cltinon program.

NONE of which obfuscation, I will note, has anything to do with Mike!s self-serving lie about calling a steady red light cutting a yellow one to closely. You have a well-kown problem dealing with the issue at hand in anny conversation.

Gee, if Mike McGavik is elected (highly unlikely), I wonder what sort of terms he would insist upon when he leaves the Senate? After serving for six years and losing an election, would he insist on another 28 million from the taxpayers for the two months of part-time work he would be expected to perform as a Senator between the November election and the start of the new Congress in January? Would he argue that he would need 3.3 million in “non-compete” money, otherwise all the Defense Dept. briefing books go to the Iranians?

Yea, I know, it’s probably an exagertion. But gee whiz, that guy sees to have the morals of a snake. Either took Safeco shareholders for a ride, or he’s actually getting paid for something to which he can’t admit.

No, I got those frm Google news account, Seattle Times and PI mostly. I haven’t looked for teh documents. I ould be srprised if the Safeco agreements were public right now. Maybe as the trial progresses. The adjustments to his compensation were relatively well-reported.

McGavick’s lies about Cantwell’s vote against the obnoxious GOP minimum wage bill — and his support for stealing the waitress tip jar — may cost him more votes than his DUI (and lying about the DUI). This guy is consistent — he lies all the time. Remember the early campaign ads that didn’t mention he’s a Republican? And don’t forget his campaign shtick about being a “moderate” — another lie, because he’s a hard-core cheap-labor conservative all the way.

“Lowney said it violated a contract McGavick negotiated when he became chief executive in 2001 that “clearly stated that if he resigned he would … forfeit all compensation, including bonuses and stock options, and would get only his last paycheck.” – Written by Daddy Love

But Daddy Love: I recently read from Moobat Central (this blog) McGavick received his $28 Million payout for TWO MONTHS work. If he started in 2001 he had to work almost four years. Soon I will start my search. Need to get some brekkie. That’s breakfast for “Carl”!

Search done!

Direct from Goldie: http://www.horsesass.org/wp-trackback.php/1862 “The first is that the $28 million package handed to him on his way out Safeco’s door looks too much like the kind of GOP corruption that has turned voters sour on Congress.

Amazing how moonbats take a lie and proliferate it in the blogosphere!

The second will be a concern about character. What the hell was McGavick thinking by negotiating an Executive Transition Services Agreement that, in effect, transferred $28 million into his pockets for two months of part-time work?”

Mr. Hate is at it again. Now we are going to ignore a man because of his middle name. That is perfectly logical reasoning. Hussein. Wow.

JCH is a poor example of a human being. He must have grown up in a lily with neighborhood as the short, skinny, pimply faced nerd (he remains the same today) who was scared of everything not like him. Sad. Very sad.

He is a liar, a bigot, a cheater, a whore for the conservative faction. He is unable to accept change or differences. He find it necessary to lie about his standing to build his falsely inflated ego.

How sad.

Commentby My Left Foot— 9/2/06@ 10:59 pm

Lily white, sorry for typo

Commentby My Left Foot […………………………………………………………………………..Good morning, Carl. Another “I’ve got a headache” night? Hey, You married the “JAP”, not me!! She’s shopping again with “Jerome” at the Embassy Suites, isn’t she? Well, Carl, watch some football, or get rid of the bitch!!!!]

Gee, Puddy, I provided the news account of the breakdown of his compensation. It was the first paragraph. Sorry you missed it somehow.

I’d say that Goldy is correct, if by “on his way out” you include the last few months of his tenure, wich I don’t see as at all unreasonable. Corporate transitions at the highest levels are communicated to top execs and the board months before any public announcement takes place.

“You made reference to finding the trail of decisions left by experienced judges. Is there a convenient place to get all that information? That is, is there a website someplace that lists all a judges decisions along with summaries of the cases?”

No, but researching this isn’t very complicated. If the judge you’re interested in sits on the state supreme court, then you read all the decisions (as far back as you want to go) of the supreme court. If he (she) is on the state court of appeals, Division II, then you look at the court of appeals Division II cases. The opinions always indicate how each judge voted in the case.

That web site also links you to the Municipal Research and Services Center, which has all published Washington appellate court decisions.

You also can go to a law library and read the opinions in print volumes; the most recent decisions will be in “advance sheets” (looseleaf volumes) and older decisions will be in bound volumes. State supreme court decisions are compiled in the Washington and Washington Second (WA and Wn2d) volumes; the decisions of all three state court of appeals are combined in the Washington Appellate (Wn.App.) volumes. Cases are cited by volume and page number; for example, 128 Wn.2d 1 is Washington Second, Volume 128, Page 1, which contains decisions more recent than 127 Wn.2d. Cases are always published in the chronological order in which they were issued.

You can also break your research down into criminal and civil cases. Criminal cases are always be captioned in the following form: “State v. John Doe” or “John Doe v. State.” A case with named parties other than “State” almost always is a civil case, e.g., “Safeco v. Jones.”

Figuring out how a specific judge rules on specific issues, e.g. how Justice Alexander rules in zoning cases, is trickier and more time consuming. You’d start with the court he sits on (state supreme court) and do a topic search (“zoning”), then start reading the cases.

Appellant opinions always contain “headnotes” which are a brief summary of how the court ruled on each legal issue before it. These are very useful for figuring out what the case was about, and how the court decided particular issues, without having to read the case. With a little practice, you can skim headnotes and size up a case in under 60 seconds.

The actual opinion will always begin with the name of the judge who wrote it. The names of the judges who voted for that opinion appear at the end of the opinion. The majority opinion is followed by the concurring and dissenting opinions, if any, and these also will indicate who authored the opinion, and which judges (if any) joined in that opinion.

This is just too damned much work for all but the most dedicated (or those paid by a law firm or organization to track judges’ opinions). Most lawyers and journalists, and a fair number of sophisticated lay voters, rely on the state and local bar association ratings. These represent a sort of peer review although there are objective criteria that measure such things as experience. When a bar association rates a judicial candidate as “unqualified,” that’s a pretty good sign that lawyers who know the person think he (or she) sucks. Are these ratings influenced by the conservative-liberal political dichotomy? Yeah, I think there’s a pro-status quo bias in the ratings, but it’s fairly minor. Somebody whose ideas are way out of the mainstream usually won’t do as well in the rating system, which rewards conformity. But what the raters are really looking at is not so much candidates’ views on controversial legal issues as such things as judicial temperament, fairness, knowledge of the law, experience, integrity, etc. The rating system normally will clobber any judicial candidate who subordinates the established norms to pursuit of a partisan agenda, whether of right or left. It also will diss candidates who are high-handed, or just plain stupid.

Take, for example, two well known conservative jurists. Richard Sanders scores okay in the ratings because he’s smart, articulate, supports his opinions with reasoning, and usually (not always) behaves as a judge is expected to. Jeannette Burrage, as a King County superior court judge, had a reputation for quirkiness and high-handed behavior on the bench, such as ordering female attorneys appearing in her court to wear skirts. She also is very partisan, and is considered by many lawyers to be rather dull intellectually.

Decisions of trial court judges (district court, superior court) are not published, so there’s no way to research the decisional track record of those judges except by general reputation among attorneys who practice in their courts.

“When you occasionally have a really bad day and you just need to take it out on someone, don’t take it out on someone you know, take it out on someone you don’t know.”

I have always believed this explains most aggressive driving. Some guy has a bad day at work, so he decides to push around the driver in front of him, or cut somebody off, because he figures the person doesn’t know him and he’ll never see the person again so he can get away with it.

Then there’s the hoary apocryphal story that goes like this. The version I heard when I started working for the state over 30 years ago went this way. A young woman was starting a new job with a state agency and was running late on her first day, so she got impatient with the driver in front of her, blared her horn at him, and flipped him off. Arriving at work barely on time, she found her desk and sat down. A minute later, in walked her new boss … who was, guess who?

The boss yells at Joe Blow, so Joe comes home after work and takes it out on his wife, who then yells at their kid, who in turn kicks the dog, which then chases the cat, so the cat knocks over the canary cage and eats the canary; and on his way down the cat’s throat, the canary wonders what the fuck he did to piss off the cat.

It should be mentioned that Paula Jones’ lawsuit was partially bankrolled by billionaire wingnut Richard Scaife, and that Jones was recruited to sue Clinton by the Scaife-paid lawyers. Scaife paid several lawyers who worked on the case behind the scenes, without Jones’ knowledge and out of the public eye; one of these “stealth” lawyers was Ann Coulter. Their job, of course, was to make political hay for the Clinton haters.

The $800,000 paid by Clinton may seem large for a “nuisance” settlement, but Jones racked up six-figure legal bills, and nearly all of the settlement went to her lawyers. Jones got next to nothing — which reflects the merits of her case. There is a widespread perception that Jones made up (or was fed) her allegations against Clinton, and a considerable probability that the tale MTR refers to as “predatory sexual behavior” is myth.

Clinton obviously is a serial philanderer, and it seems he did get sucked off by Monica in the Oval Office when he was supposed to be working. However, all of Clinton’s sexual “misconduct” of whatever you want to call it was consensual. There is no persuasive evidence that Clinton ever forced sex on anyone or committed legal actionable sexual harassment.

What Clinton did do, was bad enough, and it really wasn’t necessary for wingers to fabricate allegations of sexual offenses against him. Why they did, is hard to explain. One gets the impression they’re so much in the habit of lying that it’s just impossible for them to play anything straight, even when they’ve got the goods to do so.

Where’s the lie, pudwhacker? It’s a perfectly reasonable inference that McGavick’s last-minute severance package was intended to grease the rails of his Senate run — and includes incentives for services to be rendered to the company/industry in the future in the event he’s elected. Do you really think they would have been so generous if he had said, “Thanks for the job, it’s great to be retired and spend all my time playing golf”? The “consulting” contract obviously is nothing but cover for money the board wanted to give him for motivations they didn’t want to be forthcoming about.

As a result of this poll, Rasmussen Reports is shifting the Washington Senate race from Democrat to Leans Democrat in our Balance of Power summary. A month ago, the seat was more solidly in the Democratic column as Cantwell enjoyed an 11-point lead to six.

While the incumbent Senator can take some comfort from the general Democratic leanings of the state, it should also be noted that Cantwell has not reached the 50% level of voter support since February. Support below that level is a concern for any incumbent and suggests that McGavick is not out of the running yet.

My guess is the latest controversy will cause the gap to widen to 9-10%….but will likely go back to 6% by election date. Unless McGavick becomes much more aggressive before election day, he will likely lose by 7-8 points.

@47 Darryl Keep up the spin- one lying blogger coming to the rescue of another lying blogger. You’d think that you were a politician the way you spin- or a lazy journalist.

I’m talking not about making an interpretation- I am talking about fixing words around an incomplete quotation to give it a spin not supported by the actual quotation. That someone truncates a quotation- but quotes that piece accurately- does not absolve him from lying by ommission.

That is also the misuse of original source material that any competent professor would slap down.

But drop the “anger” bullshit. There’s no anger here- and Goldstein could tell you that. Just calling him- and you- ou over an unnecessary misrepresentation. David does a lot of good work, but his over-the-top spin keeps him from being more widely credible. And right now, ya’ll look like the guys using the swinging corpse for target practice- just a bit much.

So the media swoons when a candidate declares he’s for civility. Which of course means he’s trying to paint his opponent as not very civil (which is not a very civil thing to do) and the media can’t figure it out? What a bunch of lame a**h*les our local media have become. No wonder Rossi did so well.

Here’s the problem: There IS NO wave of calls for Ted Kennedy to step down. Even though he drove off a bridge while drunk and left a woman in the car to die, without telling anyone for the hour and a half they figure she survived after the crash. In fact, he told no authorities for 9 hours. Also, there IS NO wave of calls by democrats to tell Patrick Kennedy–who currently has a huge addiction problem–to step down.

You have no moral authority to question Mike McGavick whatsoever. Perhaps if he’d killed a woman with his car you’d like him? You seem to like Ted a whole lot.

Btw, go to ytedk.com for the story on chappaquiddick, for those too young to remember. You won’t be able to stop reading. It’s way too fascinating what you’ll learn that you didn’t know about the case.

I think the really bad part is how Mike?!’s confssion made it sound like he was an upstanding model citizen who had a calm interaction with police, was cited, and then allowed to go home.

The police report paints a more true picture of a sloppy drunk who passes out at the police station but is also so out of it and unpredictable that the police hand cuff him to a table because they feel he is a flight risk.

Other discrepencies are more routine. Drivers with alchohol on their breath have to admit to 1 to 2 drinks to explain the smell but be low enough an amount that they can take a shot at passing the field test and get let go or have a shot at winning at trial if the breath test gets thrown out.

He shouldn’t have said 3. The proper ritual is to say 2. Most catholic is to say “two beers.”

And the police report has to say there was a “steady red” no matter what the officer saw. Otherwise, there is no legal basis to stop and the DUI case has to be thrown out based on the stop. Also, face it, a light doesn’t go from yellow to “unsteady” red. It is quite plausible that the light was yellow very close to the moment Mike? went through the intersection, if not at the moment he hit it, and still have the officer see it cut and dry. On the other hand, Mike?s time sense was probably so off because of drink that he may have misjudged the distance from the intersection when he saw the yellow, like maybe when he was 150 feet from the intersection and floored the gas pedal.

”Darryl Keep up the spin- one lying blogger coming to the rescue of another lying blogger. You’d think that you were a politician the way you spin- or a lazy journalist.”

So, what lie have I told, Jim? What lie is it that you think Goldy has told? It seems like the only one lying here is…um…you. You don’t like what Goldy and I have to say, so you make up bullshit about us lying? Class act…asshole.

”I’m talking not about making an interpretation- I am talking about fixing words around an incomplete quotation to give it a spin not supported by the actual quotation. That someone truncates a quotation- but quotes that piece accurately- does not absolve him from lying by ommission.”

You’ve not shown how the partial quote used by Goldy and MSM journalist in any way distorted the meaning of McGavick’s words, nor have you shown that Goldy’s statement would be unsupported by incorporating the larger context of McGavick’s words. Rather than just calling people liars, Jim, try documenting your claims.

”That is also the misuse of original source material that any competent professor would slap down.”

Well…I don’t think you have demonstrated much common sense in the understanding of citation, quotation, or use of source material. I’m afraid I’ll simply have to dismiss your “expertise” in what makes a “competent professor.”

”But drop the “anger” bullshit. There’s no anger here- and Goldstein could tell you that. Just calling him- and you- ou over an unnecessary misrepresentation.

Fair enough—you claim no anger. However, my statement that “you seem to be blinded by your own anger” and “it appears your anger over this issue is requiring you to twist the interpretation…” are not assertions that you are angry, only that your irrational claims and misinterpretations appear to arise from anger. If not anger, then what: duplicity, ignorance, puckishness?

”David does a lot of good work, but his over-the-top spin keeps him from being more widely credible.”

What, exactly, are you claiming is over the top? In this post Goldy claims that McGavick lied to the police officer when he stated that he had “two, maybe three drinks.” Is that what you think is over the top, Jim? I think most people would agree that McGavick told the cop a “little white lie,” given his BAC. Or are you trying to claim that McGavick told the truth by making the statement, “Oh, I don’t know—two, maybe three beers” to the officer?

Palestinian militants who held two Fox News journalists hostage for nearly two weeks threatened in a statement posted online Saturday to abduct non-Muslims visiting the Palestinian territories and kill them unless their demands were met. The statement, posted in the name of the Holy Jihad Brigades on a website frequently used by militants, said the group would kill any hostages it takes unless they converted to Islam, paid a ransom or Muslim prisoners were exchanged for their release.

“Any infidel blood will have no sanctity,” the group said in the statement. […………OK, pick any 10 muuuuuuslim cities, and “Arc Light strike” them. Go for the civilians. Perhaps this might give the ragheads a clue to quit fucking with Americans. If they continue, nuke Mecca, Thehran, and a dozen other raghead cities. Soon, the Muuuuuuuuslims will “see the light”. [Get it? A little nuke humor there!]

It should be mentioned that Paula Jones’ lawsuit was partially bankrolled by billionaire wingnut Richard Scaife, and that Jones was recruited to sue Clinton by the Scaife-paid lawyers. Scaife paid several lawyers who worked on the case behind the scenes, without Jones’ knowledge and out of the public eye; one of these “stealth” lawyers was Ann Coulter. Their job, of course, was to make political hay for the Clinton haters. Shit droppings by Pelletizer.

Kind of reminds me of the 2006 lawsuit against McGavik by the grandaughter of rich Seattle moonbats. I wonder how will she answer the question of her stock gains while McGavick was CEO over the 4+ years?

Puddybud @150 The woman who is party to the lawsuit is not one of the rich Bullitts. “Emma Schwartzman, 27, is a waitress, University of Washington student and…owns what was said to be “40 to 50″ Safeco shares, which would have a total value of between $2,126 and $2,658.”

“Her great-great-grandfather, C.D. Stimson, co-founded General Insurance Co., which later became Safeco. Her grandfather is Stimson Bullitt, a prominent Seattle lawyer and businessman. One of Schwartzman’s attorneys is Steve Berman, a nationally renowned litigator of securities, antitrust and shareholder lawsuits whose name strikes fear in corporate boardrooms.

Knoll Lowney, another of Schwartzman’s lawyers and a prominent backer of local liberal causes, denied the suit was politically motivated. But it was the second time McGavick’s Safeco compensation has emerged as a potential campaign issue. The state Democratic Party filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission in April, alleging that the compensation package, coming after McGavick became a candidate, constituted an illegal corporate campaign contribution from Safeco.

….Lowney said Schwartzman and her mother, Ashley Bullitt of Port Townsend, contacted him about bringing the lawsuit. Although Schwartzman’s prominent relatives have been big donors to Democratic and liberal causes, Lowney said she isn’t politically active.

According to Federal Election Commission records, Stimson Bullitt has donated $1,500 to the Cantwell campaign this year, and his sister, Harriet Bullitt, of Leavenworth, has given Cantwell $4,000 since 2001 as well as $25,000 last year to Washington Senate 2006, a Democratic fund-raising committee.

…..Ashley Bullitt couldn’t be reached for comment. But on his liberal Seattle political blog, David Goldstein wrote: “Are you a Safeco shareholder? Are you (upset) by the $17 million golden parachute Safeco gave Mike McGavick after he announced his resignation? If you’re both, send me an e-mail.” Goldstein didn’t return phone calls Tuesday.”

She is a BULLITT! From your PI Article: “Her great-great-grandfather, C.D. Stimson, co-founded General Insurance Co., which later became Safeco. Her grandfather is Stimson Bullitt, a prominent Seattle lawyer and businessman.”

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.